WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 24 July 2014 at 08:18:22 UTC, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> When I implement the "comparison operator" for my type, I 
> expect it to be used for comparisons - and that includes 
> equality.
> If I had the feeling that I could implement == in a more 
> efficient way, or that I actually want equality to have 
> different semantics, I'd just implement opEquals as well.
>
> IMHO, everything else would be just confusing to the "average" 
> user, and if someone wants to be confused by counterintuitive 
> rules (however much sense they may make in some way) he could 
> as well just use C++ instead.
>
> But if the general view really is that opEquals should *not* be 
> opCmp == 0 by default, for performance reasons or whatever, 
> then please enforce defining opEquals when opCmd is defined, so 
> it's at least explicit that opCmd does not define equality.

+1

Silently breaking (IMHO reasonable) expectations is bad.